There are now several private and government agencies providing certification in India as third parties, such as the Chhattisgarh certification society, which began in 2003. The new scheme aims to regulate certification agencies and procedures by mandating the registration of certification bodies with the National Accreditation Board and by providing certification based on criteria and indicators set by the government under the National Working Plan Code, 2023.

This raises an important question about whether certification can lead to sustainable management of India’s over 70 million hectares of forests and benefit state forest departments, forest-dependent communities, and farmers growing trees on their farms.

The concept of sustainable forest management in India is not recent but starts from the colonial period. After the Indian Forest Act, 1865, the government took control of forest land to maximise timber production for ship building and laying railway sleepers. Dietrich Brandis, India’s first Inspector General of Forests between 1864 and 1883, first proposed the concept of sustainable forest management.

The idea was to sustainably harvest timber from the forest. For this, each forest division was to be divided into working circles of different timber tree species. Each working circle would be subdivided into compartments. By rotating the harvest of trees across compartments, the regeneration of the forest was assured and a wood stock was maintained. The aim was a sustainable supply of timber to the colonial government.

A forest working plan was to be prepared for each of the forest divisions, describing the estimated volume of timber available and how it would be harvested over a 10 to 15-year period. The first national forest working plan code, which was to serve as a guideline for preparing working plans, was published in 1881.

However, the sole objective being maximising timber production, other aspects of sustainable forest management, such as biodiversity and the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, were largely ignored in the colonial period. Aggressive plantations of teak (Tectona grandis), a valuable timber tree was taken up in wildlife-rich areas, and they can still be seen in many tiger reserves in India. Timber from Deodar trees in the Himalayas were extracted until exhaustion in a few places such as the Sutlej valley.

After independence, the extraction of timber from forests continued rather indiscriminately till 1996 when the Supreme Court intervened. The case, famously referred to as Godavarman versus Union of India, was a landmark in Indian forestry. The petition was filed due to the felling of trees on private land and the Supreme Court ruled that the forest, irrespective of ownership, should be treated under its working plan. This meant that the felling of trees on private land would be in accordance with the working plan and permission must be sought from the forest department for it.

This ruling had the positive effect of greatly reducing deforestation on private land and in forests situated above 1,500 metres and in north-east India, where it completely banned tree felling. Its negative effects were that it made many state forest development corporations obsolete and provided farmers no incentives to grow trees on their farms.

The state forest development corporations were set up on the basis of the recommendations of the National Commission for Agriculture in 1976. The objectives of the corporations were to raise forest plantations and harvest timber and non-timber forest products in a sustainable manner, thereby supporting the country’s economy.

After the 1996 ruling, the activities of many state forest development corporations, like the Himachal Pradesh Forest Development Corporation, were reduced to collecting resin (from Pinus roxburghii) and extracting salvage trees from the forest. The Lok Vaniki scheme initiated by Madhya Pradesh in 1999 to help farmers grow trees on their farms did not succeed because even small and marginal farmers with land holdings of less than a few hectares had to follow bureaucratic procedures to obtain the government’s permission for tree felling. This, in effect, discouraged them from growing trees.

Why forest certification?

Globally, the Forest Stewardship Council (FSC) established as a non-profit organisation in Bonn, Germany, in 1993 is the leading forest certification agency. The FSC aims to promote environmentally appropriate, socially beneficial, and economically viable management of the world’s forests. It claims on its website that the certification covers about 160 million hectares of forest land in 89 countries.

Forest certification has been, over the years, shown to reduce illegal logging in some countries such as Chile and Peru, but has not been identified as the only factor to have reduced deforestation in countries such as Mexico and the Democratic Republic of Congo. Forestry researchers still debate the effects of certification because several other factors influence sustainable forest management, such as recognition of community rights, policies on forest protection, and so on.

When it comes to non-timber forest produce, the certification looks even less important.

Further, certification is a costly affair. A case study on the certification of acacia plantations in Vietnam showed only marginal returns from certification and that too only if the plantations were more than 3,000 hectares. This clearly indicates there were no benefits for farmers with smaller land holdings.

In the case of India, a study commissioned by the International Tropical Timber Organisation notes that in 2020 the demand for roundwood in India—mainly used for furniture making, paper and pulp, panels and plywood, and construction—was around 57 million cubic metres, of which 47 million cubic metres was met domestically. Of this, 45 million cubic metres was from trees outside forests and only a meagre 2 million cubic metres came from state-owned forests.

In this context, certification looks a meaningless exercise because large quantities of timber will be produced from trees outside forests as block plantations of poplar, teak, and eucalyptus exist and domestic buyers are least likely to care for certified timber. In terms of export, very little timber from teak and sisham—0.01 million cubic metres—was exported in 2020.

Any shift in demand for certified timber domestically or internationally could tilt the scale in favour of wealthy farmers who can afford certification costs. It could also discourage small farmers from growing trees on their farms.

When it comes to non-timber forest produce, the certification looks even less important. Produce such as mahua flowers, sal seeds, and tendu leaves in central India and rhododendron flowers and pine cones in the Himalayas are gathered and marketed locally. There is no evidence of any of these being exported in their raw form.

India aimed to boost its agroforestry through the National Agroforestry Policy in 2014. However, almost a decade later, there has hardly been any improvement in agroforestry.

As for state forest departments, the Supreme Court’s 1996 restrictions on extracting timber are still in place and they have to prepare working plans and get them approved according to the latest working plan code. This should include the volume of timber that can be sustainably extracted without affecting biodiversity and the needs of forest-dependent communities. Only then will the certification be a value addition if the forest products are exported.

For forest-dependent communities, community rights are recognised in about 6.5 million hectares of forest land under the Forest Rights Act (FRA), 2006. Communities using their Community Forest Rights (CFR) provisions have been sustainably extracting NTFP and marketing thereby making good economic gains. Many more millions of forest dependent communities still depend on NTFP for their livelihood even without rights. Further, there is no provision for extracting timber under the management rights given to communities, though forest departments run plantations in forests with recognised community rights.

India aimed to boost its agroforestry through the National Agroforestry Policy in 2014. It made tree saplings easily available to farmers and eased restrictions on tree felling and transit. However, almost a decade later, there has hardly been any improvement in agroforestry. A recent study titled “Severe Decline in Large Agroforestry Trees in India over the Past Decade”, to which I contributed, noted a severe decline of mature trees on farms in India because of changing cropping patterns, mechanised farming, and farmers perceiving no economic benefit in having trees on their farms.

In sum, the global experience shows forest certification can at the most increase the market value marginally but this comes with high certification costs, which doesn’t help marginal farmers and forest dependent communities and certification alone does not lead to sustainable forest management or help in increasing agroforestry.

Towards sustainable management

In India, the causes of deforestation are diversion of forests to non-forestry purpose such as mining, roads, and other infrastructure and degradation due to fire, cattle grazing, and invasive species such as lantana.

Caution must be exercised to not raise plantations on grasslands and other open natural forest, which are important ecosystems in themselves.

Sustainable forest management is important to ensure ecosystem services such as the flow of streams and rivers, to support the livelihoods of forest-dependent communities, and for a forest-based economy. More than certification, what is required is a good working plan to manage the forests and sustainably extract timber and other non-timber forest produce.

The National Working Plan Code, last revised in 2014 and 2023, provides guidelines on managing forests sustainably through a working plan that considers biodiversity, carbon sequestration, and the livelihood needs of local communities, including grazing and firewood collection.

A study in the Congo basin has shown that a forest management plan with rotational harvest of timber and a clear benefit-sharing plan with forest-dependent communities were much more effective than forest certification in sustainable forest management.

To meet the growing domestic demand for timber, plantations outside forests can be increased. This can reduce the logging pressure on natural forests and reduce deforestation. A possible way forward is to encourage forest development corporations to raise plantations on degraded land and farmers to plant trees on their fallow or uncultivable land. Waterlogged and degraded land with invasive trees such Prosopis juliflora could also be utilised for raising plantations.

Some of colonial era plantations of pine and eucalyptus could be slowly removed and planted with native oak and sal trees, which are more resourceful. Communities having CFR in degraded land could also be encouraged to raise plantations with a clear procedure for getting full benefits from the timber produced. Lastly, procedures to fell trees according to a working plan, transit and market them should be made easy for both states and farmers.

However, caution must be exercised to not raise plantations on grasslands and other open natural forest, which are important ecosystems in themselves. There is a need to strengthen the capacity of state forest departments to prepare good working plans that can identify plantation areas, raise quality plantations, and sustainably harvest timber—all the while preserving natural forests for ecological security.

To conclude, these few steps would help improve sustainable forest management in India and increase the income of farmers and state forest departments much more than forest certification.

This article was originally published on The India Forum.

Since India has a diverse geography and many social systems, the approaches taken vary from one region to the next. This photo essay documents the efforts of five nonprofits from across the country.

Osmanabad is an aspirational district in Marathwada, a drought-prone region in Maharashtra. Rainfall is irregular, which makes agriculture challenging and directly impacts both income and food security. The pervasive cultivation of cash crops in the area further depletes groundwater levels.

Swayam Shikshan Prayog (SSP) works with women farmers to help them practise an innovative model called one-acre farming. It started with six women who used 0.5–1 acre of their family land to grow food crops such as vegetables, millets, and pulses—the cultivation of which ensured food security for their families. The women relied on bio-inputs and therefore did not have to spend large amounts on chemical inputs. In addition, they sowed crops that require less water and used sustainable techniques such as drip irrigation and sprinklers. The success of this approach has led to its adoption by thousands of women, who demonstrated the model’s benefits to their families and started practising it on larger plots of land. Eventually, SSP helped women farmers widen their market by setting up a farmer producer organisation.  

Professional Assistance for Development Action (PRADAN)’s work in the plateau regions of West Bengal faced a different challenge. These areas have an undulating topography, and high rainfall and deforestation in the region have led to heavy soil erosion. This has impacted the lives and livelihoods of the tribal communities that live here. While the state government made efforts towards watershed development, there was an urgent need to include locals in designing the solutions meant for them.

PRADAN worked with women’s self-help groups (SHGs), village-level organisations, and cluster-level federations to engage the community in the process. They gathered and discussed their challenges—from food security to water scarcity—and gradually came up with the solutions that worked for them. PRADAN also set up a project management unit to coordinate between grassroots civil society organisations and gram panchayats to develop detailed plans for water conservation. This has helped in the creation of natural water harvesting solutions such as tanks and ponds in villages.  

The Gujarat-based nonprofit Vikram Sarabhai Centre for Development Interaction (VIKSAT) works in the northern districts of the state, such as Banaskantha and Sabarkantha, that have limited groundwater potential due to years of the overuse of chemicals in agriculture, among other reasons. These districts are largely populated by tribal people who have small plots of land and limited means to invest in expensive irrigational measures. 

VIKSAT, which actively involves women farmers in its programmes, has designed a water budgeting exercise; as part of this, the communities maintain a scorecard to keep track of water use in the fields. This has enabled the farmers to leverage data to make collective decisions about farming and has also encouraged them to adopt water conservation techniques such as building field bunds and check dams. Over time, they have also shifted to water-efficient wheat varieties and have started using bio-fertilisers such as cow dung that enrich the soil.

Agriculture is a critical driver of Punjab’s economy, with paddy and wheat—both water-intensive crops—grown extensively in the state. Over the years, this has contributed to depleting groundwater levels: 117 of 150 blocks in the state are overexploited.

Centers for International Projects Trust (CIPT) works with farmer cooperatives in Punjab to promote solutions for the water-efficient cultivation of paddy and wheat, including the use of new technologies. They have, for instance, introduced IoT-based soil moisture sensors that estimate the amount of water needed. When the fields require water, the sensors send advisory text messages to farmers who then irrigate their fields based on these inputs. This helps conserve both water and electricity.

In Balrampur, an aspirational district in eastern Uttar Pradesh, agriculture is increasingly becoming an unviable form of livelihood for small and marginal farmers due to rising input costs and poor yields. People’s Action for National Integration (PANI) has trained an all-women cadre of agri-water professionals. The cadre supports these farmers to adopt simple yet innovative agricultural practices that use resources more efficiently and improve farmers’ yields and incomes. Farmers are encouraged to shift away from entrenched behaviours through a range of approaches—video dissemination sessions where they learn about new irrigation methods, field demonstrations that visualise these techniques, providing access to high-quality seeds, bio-inputs, market linkages, and more.

In an earlier version of this photo essay, the location of the second photograph was incorrectly captured as Binpur village, Jhargram district, West Bengal . This was updated on March 27, 2024, to reflect the accurate location.

—

Know more

• Read more about how nonprofits are making agriculture viable for small and marginal farmers.
• Learn about the right to water and how it applies to different groups.
• Learn more about groundwater in India.

Agriculture sucks up 89 percent of India’s groundwater, making it the world’s largest consumer of this resource. To add to this, more than half of India’s cultivable land is under water-intensive crops—paddy, sugarcane, wheat, and cotton. While crops such as sugarcane and paddy have a long history of cultivation in India, their cultivation has increased in recent decades, especially in states such as Uttar Pradesh, Maharashtra, Punjab, and Haryana.

The growth of paddy and sugarcane

Paddy, or rice, has been grown as a staple food in many parts of India for centuries. In Punjab, the area under paddy cultivation was just 6.9 percent in 1970–71. Over time it has become the third largest producer of rice in the country, with 87 percent of total area under kharif (seeds are sown at the onset of monsoon) cultivation. The main catalyst for this shift was the Green Revolution.

The aim of the Green Revolution was to achieve food security in India. It mainstreamed paddy and wheat in Punjab and created an agriculture ecosystem in which high-yielding variety (HYV) seeds and subsidies on fertilisers and chemicals were introduced, agro-machinery was promoted, and access to water for irrigation and procurement of every grain was ensured. This infrastructure was built to ensure market security for farmers,” explains Sandeep Dixit, director of Centers for International Projects Trust (CIPT), an organisation that works on making water and energy management efficient.

Paddy farmers in Punjab are assured of a minimum support price (MSP) and a guarantee that the government will purchase their crop, which has further incentivised them to cultivate paddy.

Another example of agriculture adapting to the demand ecosystem relates to the cultivation of sugarcane in Uttar Pradesh. Deo Datt Singh, an agribusiness expert and the director of operations at People’s Action for National Integration (PANI), says, “Uttar Pradesh has the perfect climatic conditions for sugarcane cultivation. Over the past three decades, demand has been increasing, and since it is always in demand, farmers started growing it as a cash crop.”

Today, Uttar Pradesh is the second largest producer of sugarcane in India. Anoop Kumar, project coordinator at PANI states, “The opening of sugar mills made sugarcane economically viable for farmers. It is now considered an easy, hardy, and even a ‘lazy’ crop as it is sown just once a year.”

Impact of growing water-intensive crops

Both paddy and sugarcane are water-intensive crops. Depending on where in the country they are grown, up to 5,000 litres of water are needed to produce a kilogram of rice, and 2,000–3,000 litres to produce a kilogram of sugar. India’s water footprint for rice production is by far the highest of all the major rice-producing countries globally.

More than 96 percent of Punjab’s irrigation needs are met through groundwater, and 117 out of 150 blocks in the state are overexploited. Sandeep explains that agriculture in Punjab runs on a subsidised mechanism—electricity is provided free and farm machinery and various agricultural inputs are subsidised. This encourages farmers to dig multiple borewells, deepen them, and run them for many more hours than what the crop requires.

“In flood-irrigated paddy it is recommended to leave water on the field for just 15 days, but farmers leave the field inundated for 30–60 days, leading to severe wastage of water,” adds Sandeep.

Seventy percent of Uttar Pradesh’s groundwater is over-extracted. Deo Datt says, “Rainwater fulfils approximately 30 percent of sugarcane’s water demand. For the rest, farmers rely on diesel pumps to extract groundwater as the state doesn’t have enough electricity to power motor pumps. This increases carbon emissions.”

Course correction

Both PANI and CIPT are helping farmers shift away from inefficient and resource-intensive agricultural practices.

Some of the practices promoted by PANI for water-efficient sugarcane cultivation are:

1. System of sugarcane intensification (SSI)

In this method, sugarcane plant buds are prepared in a nursery and seedlings are transplanted to the fields. Anoop explains the benefits of adopting SSI. “First, planting buds in the nursery guarantees that every seed will germinate. Since there is no wastage of seeds, yield increases by 30–40 percent. Second, while the plants are in the nursery, short-duration crops can be cultivated in the fields, which generates additional income for farmers.”

Traditionally, over the course of cultivation (a duration of 10–12 months) the sugarcane crop has to be irrigated eight to ten times. SSI saves approximately 6,000 cubic metres of water per hectare, as the first two rounds of irrigation are not required. According to Anoop, this is a huge shift and helps farmers who adopt it save 25 percent water.

2. Ridge and furrow method

Before PANI’s interventions, farmers followed a traditional approach wherein the entire field was flooded with water when the sugarcane crop was sown. The ridge and furrow method takes a different approach. Anoop says, “The plants are sown in furrows, and water is supplied only to these furrows for the first three months. It takes half the time to irrigate the furrows in comparison to watering the entire field. This not only saves water but also reduces the carbon footprint of sugarcane cultivation.”

3. Mulching

Earlier, farmers used to burn the leaves left after harvesting half their sugarcane crop (following a practice known as ratooning). Burning produces some carbon, which is good for the soil. But this practice has a grave environmental impact and burnt soil also requires more water. The farmers that PANI works with are now trying mulching instead. Anoop says that instead of burning the leaves, farmers spread them across the field in a 1–1.5-inch-thick layer. This helps the soil retain moisture and inhibits the growth of grass, which in turn saves farmers one round of weeding and irrigation.

The decomposed leaves also act as compost and increase the soil’s water retention capacity. PANI notes that 2,500–3,000 cubic metres of water are retained per hectare—this saves 17–18 percent of the water supply.

Mulching has been one of PANI’s most successful interventions. Within five years of introducing this practice, PANI established it in 95 percent of the area they work in.

4. Intercropping

Sugarcane is planted in rows that are 2–2.5 feet apart. This provides sufficient space to grow two to three lines of pulses, allowing for their simultaneous cultivation with sugarcane, without requiring additional water. PANI has also been testing other crops, such as onion, that can be planted alongside sugarcane. 

Techniques used by CIPT to reduce water use in paddy cultivation in Punjab include:

1. Intelligent water-saving technology

Advances in technology enable better decision-making as they help farmers estimate the amount of water their crops need. CIPT deployed tech-based solutions such as tensiometers and soil moisture sensors to measure and assess field water requirements. Punjab Agricultural University (PAU) developed a tensiometer—a low-cost device that measures soil moisture. Between 2009 and 2015, CIPT promoted the use of tensiometers in nine of the most groundwater-depleted districts of central Punjab.

Building on the learnings from the tensiometer, CIPT then deployed digital soil moisture sensors that sent irrigation advisory text messages to farmers to start and stop their pumps based on soil moisture readings. “If farmers follow the SMS recommendations, water consumption could potentially be reduced by 25–30 percent,” adds Sandeep.

2. Alternate wetting and drying

Sandeep says that farmers in Punjab have traditionally flooded paddy fields for 40–60 days, which isn’t necessary. With alternate wetting and drying (AWD), the field is irrigated, and the subsequent round of irrigation is applied only after the standing water has permeated the soil.” This practice can save more than 30 percent water and reduce methane emissions by 48 percent.

3. Crop diversification

Before the Green Revolution, the crop profile in Punjab was quite diverse but the push towards crops such as paddy and wheat created a monocropping culture. In the absence of crop rotation, soil loses its nutrients, which leads to increased use of fertilisers, and pesticides.

Sandeep says that if farmers were to diversify their crops, it would help save water, generate additional income for the farmer, and help improve the quality of soil. The central government has also initiated a crop diversification programme in Punjab to push other crops such as maize, millets, and cotton.

Sowing seeds for a water-secure future

The experience of these organisations demonstrates that it is possible to reduce the amount of water consumed in the cultivation of these crops without negatively impacting productivity. Together, PANI and CIPT work with 90,000 farming households. Many of the techniques they employ can be replicated and scaled to farming communities in other parts of the country. Helping farmers adopt these practices, tools, and technologies can change the footprint of water consumption and ensure water and food security for the country.

—

Know more

• Listen to this podcast that discusses the future of farming in India.
• Learn about the concept of virtual water and the implications of India’s trade in this resource.

This year’s kinnow harvest has been exceptional, due to favourable temperatures during the crop’s flowering stage, resulting in an anticipated output of 13.5 lakh metric tonnes. However, this bumper harvest has led to a significant decline in farm gate prices. The farm gate value of a cultivated product in agriculture is the market value of a product minus the selling costs.

The fruit used to fetch Rs 20-30 per kilogram. However, this year, farmers are getting only Rs 6-12 per kg.

Successive state governments had been dilly-dallying on the implementation of several crop diversification measures, and consequently, wheat-paddy monoculture is going on in the state unabated. While kinnow cultivation has been promoted as a competitive cropping alternative for farmers in southwest Punjab, the precarious pricing dynamics and weak institutional arrangements associated with it may not counter the dominance of a wheat-paddy monoculture.

Economic viability of kinnow cultivation  

A farmer will diversify from paddy to other crops if the returns are not only promising but also significantly higher than those from paddy.

We assessed the cultivation practices of kinnow and calculated the operational cost per acre based on the interactions with farmers from Jandwala village in Abohar.

Kinnow cultivation is quite laborious throughout the crop cycle and depends heavily on both hired and family labour. As compared to wheat and paddy, this crop is quite fragile as it requires the family labour to continuously micro-manage crop safety during and before the harvesting months.

Strenuous farm operations generally favour male labour, while for tasks such as tilling the soil and harvesting, female labour is preferred, as they do the work very neatly and are also available at lesser wage rates.

Farm operations based on labour

The incubation period, from three to four years, and the wear and tear of the plants are inseparable parts of the cultivation cost. The overall cost of cultivating kinnow per acre is Rs 47,000. The average yield from a kinnow farm is 100 quintals per acre, with an average farm gate price of Rs 700 per quintal this year. Consequently, returns per acre amount to Rs 70,000, and net returns over operational costs are Rs 23,000 per acre.

Comparatively, last year’s average price of Rs 2,500 per quintal resulted in net returns of Rs 2.03 lakh per acre. This demonstrates significant price variations and fluctuations in profit margins. On the other hand, paddy, with an average cost of Rs 20,000 per acre, yields net returns of around Rs 45,000 per acre. Paddy is a stable crop for farmers, with fewer fluctuations in returns due to open-ended procurement by the government with a minimum support price (MSP) and its weather resilience.

Furthermore, paddy is a relatively less labour-intensive crop. It does not require any micro-management as the harvesting is fully mechanised. This makes paddy an obvious choice for the farmers.

Market fluctuations

After bearing high investments in kinnow production, farmers have to face market asymmetries each year. Over the past few years, effective post-harvest management for kinnow growers has been lacking. There is an absence of processing units to absorb local kinnow production. While several private waxing and grading plants have emerged in the area, thanks to traders and business entrepreneurs, there is currently no buyback guarantee or price surety for the produce.

Despite the existence of a well-established citrus mandi in Abohar, it does not guarantee farmers a favourable price, even when factoring in the costs of transportation, loading, and unloading. Consequently, farmers find themselves heavily reliant on agents or contractors for marketing their produce. Given the perishable nature of the product, contractors play a crucial role in kinnow procurement, and as a result, price determination is largely dependent on them.

The contractors supply the fruit to other states, such as Delhi, Karnataka, and Jammu and Kashmir. The fruit is also supplied to other countries, such as Bangladesh and Nepal. Contracts are finalised in June and the rates are fixed on the basis of the number of flowers on a tree that indicate the output of the fruit. These contracts are not directly established with the companies, but are intermediated through a number of agents who further market the fruit. Payments are directly transferred to the bank accounts of the farmers. In case of any delay, an extra amount is also paid. Agents bear the entire cost of picking the fruit from the farms, which includes loading and unloading, grading and waxing.

Selling through contractors is found to be the most convenient marketing method, despite the fact that the prices offered by contractors are among the lowest across all marketing channels. As contractors form their cartel and prices are largely influenced by the market forces, it creates asymmetry of bargaining power in favour of buyers.

However, farmers prefer contractors because of the prompt payment they provide. Many smallholders have expressed the need for immediate cash after the harvest to settle loans from commission agents and moneylenders.

Hence, due to the lack of proper governance over an assured marketing system and value chain, kinnow has remained a risky investment for small growers, even when there is a niche demand within and outside Indian markets.

The way forward

The cost structure of kinnow cultivation suggests that it requires relatively more investment on labour, machinery, micro-management, and skill-level. As compared to paddy, the opportunity cost of establishing a kinnow farm is relatively higher. Therefore, it seems to be a risky affair to venture in, especially for small holders.

Hence, paddy is an obvious choice for the farmers in Punjab, as there are no economically stable and rewarding alternatives.

In fact, Punjab has been the top contributor of paddy in the central pool of food grains for the last ten years. Hence, blaming Punjab’s farmers for cultivating paddy and its consequential impact on the environment, especially during the seasonal rise in air pollution in Delhi, is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black.

Thus, several measures need to be taken to safeguard kinnow growers. The agro food industry should be given priority to absorb the produce locally. Building relationships with food processors, juice manufacturers, and other agribusinesses can create a stable market for kinnow growers. Additionally, small and marginal farmers need hand-holding support from the government to diversify.

This article was originally published on The Wire.

Most of the labourers migrating from one village to another in the Kotra block of Udaipur district, Rajasthan, belong to the Adivasi community. They are accustomed to engaging in farm work in the neighbouring villages as it allows them to reside with their families, even if it means crossing the state border for this purpose.

What does migrating from one village to another mean?

Kotra block marks the southernmost tip of South Rajasthan. It is primarily inhabited by the Bhil community, whose livelihood has traditionally depended on the forests. Earlier, members of the community would earn their income by gathering and selling tendu leaves (used for making beedis), bamboo, various medicinal plants, and other minor forest products. However, several laws enacted 30–40 years ago forced them to abandon their forest-based lifestyles. The implementation of the Wildlife (Protection) Act of 1972 and the establishment of the Phulwari ki Naal Sanctuary in Kotra in 1983 greatly impacted them. The enforcement of this law and the policies surrounding sanctuaries resulted in government authorities discontinuing the community’s access to forest resources.

Since Kotra is on the border of Rajasthan and Gujarat and the fields of Gujarat start just 10 kilometres from here, there is no significant difference in the language and culture of these two areas. Therefore, the residents of Kotra found it better to migrate to the villages of Gujarat instead of the cities because it would be more difficult for them to go and live in the cities.

Sabarkantha and Banaskantha are two districts of northern Gujarat adjoining Rajasthan. The largest producers of vegetables in Gujarat, these districts have been adopting new agricultural techniques. There are many large farmer settlements here, one of which comprises the Patels, a traditionally agricultural community. They have several acres of land and tend to require local labourers. These districts get water from the Dharoi dam built on the Sabarmati river, and hence three to four crops can be grown in this area in a year.

Additionally, due to rapid industrial development in Gujarat, local labourers—such as those belonging to the Thakurda community, SCs, and landless OBCs—who used to participate in agriculture are now less inclined to do so. Instead of working in the villages, they have started settling in the cities. Due to this migration, the farmers of Gujarat were in want of labourers—this need was fulfilled by the Adivasi labourers of Rajasthan.

Why is migration a compulsion for Adivasis?

1. Size of land: Kotra is a hilly area with very little agricultural land. Of the total available land, only 19 percent can be farmed. Due to a large number of uncultivated areas, the means of livelihood here are extremely limited. A dearth of basic facilities poses an additional problem.

2. Lack of opportunities: Those who had some land in the area found that their families were growing while the land available for farming was decreasing. Since it is not possible to support so many people on land alone, they would end up selling it. Apart from farming, they do not have any skills that they can use to go to the city and earn money, nor are there such opportunities and facilities nearby.

3. Immediate need for money: A lump sum amount is required for necessities such as marriage expenses, medical emergencies, or digging a well. To meet these pressing economic needs, individuals often find themselves compelled to migrate.

How do migrant labourers work?

There is a constant need for labourers in farm work. If a farmer hires a labourer on a daily wage basis, it is relatively more expensive because the labourer has to be paid every month. Moreover, if the crop suffers damage, the farmer faces losses. Therefore, instead of hiring daily labourers, the method of sharecropping has been adopted in this area. Sharecropping involves a sharecropper, locally known as a bhagiya. Under this arrangement, the labourer gets a portion of the produce from farming activities. For instance, if a farmer grows 120 quintals of wheat, the sharecropper would get 20 quintals—one-sixth of the total produce—as wages. Any advance money given by the farmer would be deducted from this share. If additional labourers are hired during the crop cycle, their payment would also be deducted from this one-sixth share.

Typically, the farmer and the labourer enter into a verbal contract at the beginning of the season. The farmer gives the labourer an advance of INR 15,000–20,000. Once the contract is confirmed, the labourer, along with his family, engages in farm work and stays there for the entire kharif (seeds are sown at the onset of monsoon) and sometimes rabi (seeds are sown during early winter) season. This could last from six months to a year.

What is the reality of labourers engaged in sharecropping?

When we think about land, we must consider it as a sum of six parts: the land itself, water, seeds, fertilisers, new technology, and labour. Farmers say that due to new technology, labourers have to work less and so this must be taken into account as well. In such a scenario, when labourers are easily available, they end up suffering the consequences.

1. Minimum wage: The minimum agricultural wage in Gujarat is INR 268. When workers engage in sharecropping, this wage reduces to approximately INR 100—a big loss for the worker.

2. Lack of clear laws: There is no law for sharecropping and so if there is a dispute between the employer and the labourer, it is very difficult to reach a just resolution. There is a provision for the payment of daily wages under the labour laws, but such a system has not been established for agricultural work. The result is that if an issue arises, labourers often do not receive payment and have to return home empty-handed. Moreover, when labourers seek employment, they are unable to engage in political or social activities.

3. Calculation for advance: Farmers pay the labourers in instalments instead of giving them the advance all at once. When the labourer first goes to see the field, everything from how many more labourers he will bring to how much advance the farmer will give him is decided. For example, if the total amount is INR 30,000, the farmer will pay INR 15,000 initially, followed by the second instalment on the festival of Rakhi in August. July and August are important months for farming. The sowing season commences in June, with primary tasks such as removal of weeds and spraying of insecticides taking place alongside crop cultivation till August. The farmer ensures to extract work equivalent to the advance he pays to the labourer. If there is a discord between the farmer and the labourer in the period that follows, the labourer is dismissed without being paid the second instalment. As a result, his entire year is wasted—securing alternative employment in the sharecropping system is unlikely because all the positions are usually already filled. Thus, the labourer faces prolonged unemployment, often leading to debt.

4. Additional labour: In agricultural work, there are instances where additional labourers are hired. The wages for these additional labourers typically come out of the sharecropper’s allocation. This practice is generally acknowledged and accepted by the sharecropper.

What are the advantages and disadvantages for farmers?

1. Cheap and socially vulnerable labour: The migration of labourers from one village to another provides farmers with access to cheap labour throughout the year. Because these labourers often come from different states, the policies and regulations of the farmer’s state may not apply to them. Additionally, the state government tends to overlook the rights and welfare of migrant labourers, resulting in their grievances being underreported. This is partly why farmers prefer hiring migrant labourers over locally based individuals who may possess greater political or social influence.

2. Desired crop, desired share: Adivasi labourers prefer coming to villages rather than going to cities as the work here is familiar to them. The farmers have understood this, and so they decide what share the labourers will get. In Banaskantha, where potato cultivation is common, farmers share up to one-tenth of the crop with the labourers because the crop brings in more profit.

3. Labour expenses: The labourer’s share is used to cover all labour costs. Approximately 50 percent of the farming expenses go towards labour, and the remaining 50 percent is allocated to various inputs such as seeds, water, medicines, and electricity. In sharecropping, the labourer’s share not only covers these expenses but also accounts for additional labour, ultimately boosting the farmer’s profit.

So far, the only disadvantage that has emerged for the farmers is that labourers have sometimes run away with the advance and not come to work. This has been seen in 2–3 percent of the cases till now. If a farmer loses both his money and labour, he has to find a new person to do the work.

According to an estimate, there are more than 90,000 farmers in just these two districts of Gujarat, and each of them has their own share of land and labour. When we think of agricultural labourers, we often picture daily wage workers. However, apart from them, there are 30,000–40,000 labourers engaged in sharecropping in Rajasthan and Gujarat. Despite their significant numbers, this population of labourers remains largely unseen and unrecognised.

—

Know more

• Watch a conversation with sharecroppers and farmers in Gujarat.
• Read this article to learn about how nonprofits can ensure safe migration for informal workers.

While it is important to focus on measures to reduce GHG emissions from the sector, it is equally critical to ensure that farmer livelihoods and agricultural productivity don’t get impacted. In light of this, there has been a growing focus on the practice of regenerative agriculture. This shift aims to encourage more sustainable farming methods among farmers without imposing undue financial burdens on them. Regenerative agriculture places emphasis on restoring soil health in order to decrease GHG emissions. It involves minimising soil disturbance through practices such as reduced tillage or no-till farming, fostering biodiversity through cover cropping and crop rotation, and integrating trees or shrubs into agricultural landscapes through agroforestry. 

However, in order to make tangible progress in this fight, reliable and accessible data is crucial for organisations that work in close conjunction with such small and economically disadvantaged farmers. These include nonprofits, research institutions, and governmental agencies working on sustainable farming practices, rural development, and improving the livelihoods of small-scale farmers. Such organisations need access to granular data, updated in real time, in order to facilitate research and formulate a strategic implementation plan for each farm. This involves the collection of essential information, including details on farmers, average landholdings, water resource availability, saplings planted, and the survival rates of these plants.

But technology is expensive. Small nonprofits that work with farmers at the grassroots often find it difficult to spend on hardware, software, and data collection tools. Their inability to adopt innovation not only affects their efficacy to implement programmes on ground but also makes their organisational functioning time-consuming. So how can technology be made more accessible and how can its benefits be extended to a wide array of nonprofits working on these issues?

The promise of free and open-source software

One answer may lie in utilising free and open-source software (FOSS) that is already available in the market. FOSS allows users to access, modify, and share data easily. It is affordable and highly customisable, also allowing for collaboration between different stakeholders. In stark contrast, proprietary or vendor systems often lack transparency on how the system operates and their pricing structures can be exorbitant, with additional charges for every new feature or product recommendation.

At Tech4Good Community (T4GC), we have been actively advancing the potential of FOSS with several nonprofits that may be constrained by resources and the capacity to incorporate technology into their operations. Agro Rangers (AR)—a grassroots nonprofit organisation working on adoption of regenerative agricultural practices with farmers in Pune, Maharashtra—is one of our partners. They work with agricultural communities on ground, focusing on creating agroforestry interventions, improving soil quality, and transitioning from chemical to organic farming practices. This requires meticulous collection of data, including information on soil composition, carbon levels, and climatic conditions encompassing temperature, water availability, and humidity of each farm in each location. Additionally, there is a need to track organisational data including employee leave and expenses.

Here we share learnings from our work with AR and how FOSS helped make the process of data collection easier for its teams.

1. Enabled smarter data collection

In the case of AR, a field manager oversees the operations of 150 farmers. The current implementation covers 50 farmers, with plans for expansion. As new farmers are brought into the system, specific data is gathered during the distribution of saplings based on individual preferences. For instance, some farmers may request a combination of fruit saplings like mango and lemon, while others prefer alternative varieties such as jamun and custard apple. The field manager ensures precise sapling distribution and simultaneously records essential details. This data, including instances of surplus saplings that require later retrieval, forms a secondary layer of information guiding future distribution strategies. Throughout the year, the team diligently monitors sapling survival rates, offering comprehensive insights into inventory management and the overall effectiveness of their agricultural initiatives.

However, manually collecting and organising this data was proving to be a labour-intensive exercise, with the added complexity of managing multiple forms concurrently. When AR was using Google Forms, which at times was the case, they couldn’t progress to collect data from the next farmer until the previous one had submitted their form.

The introduction to KoboToolbox streamlined AR’s laborious data collection process. Kobo is a FOSS technology that collects, analyses, and manages data for surveys, monitoring, evaluation, and research. It allowed AR to customise its data collection forms to include a variety of question types. Once the forms were designed, they were deployed to mobile devices through the KoboCollect app, facilitating offline data collection where an internet connection is unavailable.

The system aids in tracking sapling distribution, identifying inventory needs, and streamlining the planting process.

Kobo also allowed AR to pause the data entry for one farmer and seamlessly move on to the next person, eliminating the waiting period for form submission, which ranged anywhere from five hours to two days. There were many other advantages too. The software not only streamlined data collection but also facilitated user identification, ensuring that each farmer’s progress and unique needs could be effectively monitored and addressed. The software also helped capture data related to labour deployed on each farm, which was previously documented in cumbersome registers. This meant that AR now had access to extensive data on the gender ratio of employment in every small landholding, as modest as one acre.

The collected data can be securely stored on the KoboToolbox server, organised and managed through the web interface, which provides features for data analysis and visualisation. This now enables AR to monitor progress, allocate resources efficiently, and adjust strategies based on real-time data. For instance, the system aids in tracking sapling distribution, identifying inventory needs, and streamlining the planting process. This capability allows for prompt adjustments and informed decision-making in the face of climatic variations, enhancing the overall effectiveness of climate-focused initiatives.

2. Streamlined internal data management

For internal operations, AR relied heavily on manual processes. Donor records, volunteer management, and team leave dates were all managed on Excel. This meant that for the founder of the organisation, with a small team and no dedicated staff, the sheer volume of data and the responsibility of keeping track of reporting structures and finances became incredibly time-consuming. This diverted focus from programmatic work, highlighting a significant organisational challenge. The absence of dedicated personnel and sophisticated software further compounded the need for a more productive system.

Once implemented, ERP systems act as centralised databases, consolidating data from different departments into a unified platform.

The introduction of an enterprise resource planning (ERP) system helped substantially streamline these operations. ERP refers to a type of software that organisations use to manage day-to-day business activities such as accounting, procurement, project management, risk management and compliance, and supply chain operations. A complete ERP suite also includes enterprise performance management, a software that helps plan, budget, predict, and report on an organisation’s financial results. Once implemented, ERP systems act as centralised databases, consolidating data from different departments into a unified platform. This integration facilitates real-time communication and collaboration across various business functions.

For AR, ERP has enabled real-time tracking of team members’ in-and-out times, leave, and salaries. It has also helped in managing volunteers. Additionally, this integration has assisted AR in donor management; utilisation of funds can now be tracked in detail, highlighting the areas where expenses were incurred. Features such as automated reminders for pending installments, generation of 80G receipts, and handling of income-tax-related forms like the 10B form have also been incorporated.

3. Made data shareable and easy to understand

To enable easier analysis of all the data collected through KoboToolbox, Metabase was integrated into AR’s processes. Metabase is an open-source business intelligence tool that enables organisations to study data from a variety of destinations and sources, lets them ask questions about their data, and displays answers in user-friendly formats such as bar charts or a detailed table.

This integration empowers AR employees, regardless of technical expertise, to shift their focus from sorting through disparate data formats to concentrating on operational tasks. With Metabase, AR can make informed decisions. For instance, it now has the potential to facilitate the analysis of various farming models to identify successful approaches as well as those in need of modifications. Furthermore, it can provide the team with valuable insights into the types of saplings favoured by farmers, enabling them to tailor their initiatives to better align with farmer choices and needs. Metabase also allows AR to track the impact their projects had and clearly communicate their results to donors, customers, and corporate and foundation partners, as well as to new partners.   

With regenerative agriculture emerging as a crucial lever in addressing climate challenges, it becomes imperative for grassroots nonprofits working in this domain to leverage technology that suits their unique needs. The cost-effectiveness of FOSS is a compelling reason for nonprofits to explore and adopt these solutions, ensuring they maximise their impact while minimising financial burden. However, several challenges remain. Beyond technical and financial constraints, some organisations may be hesitant to depart from traditional manual processes and proprietary software. Data privacy and security concerns are also relevant for nonprofits that handle sensitive information, and these must be taken into consideration. Nevertheless, the escalating challenges posed by the climate crisis underscore the importance for data-driven climate advocacy.

—

Know more:

• Read this to learn more about the importance of quality data to drive sustainable farming practices.
• Read this article to learn more about the benefits of open-source technology for nonprofits.

Approximately 90 percent of the FPOs in the country primarily engage in input management, that is, they try to achieve economies of scale (cost advantage that companies obtain due to their scale) by buying inputs such as fertilisers, seeds, and pesticides. Not many focus on managing outputs, even something as basic as primary output, which is an aggregation of the farmers’ produce to be taken to the mandi. This limited use of the FPO model is one of the primary reasons why most of them are unviable enterprises. According to one estimate, 86 percent of FPOs have paid-up capital lower than INR 10 lakh and offer little to the individual farmers or the FPOs in terms of enhanced incomes or market clout.

Value addition, also called ‘off-farm activities’, refers to the creation of market-ready products in any domain, be it food, fashion, or lifestyle. Value-added products such as cereals, jams, baskets, and clothes allow producers to generate a higher return. They are thus a key lever for increasing farmers’ incomes.

Value addition is essentially manufacturing 

Manufacturing, unlike farming, is not an individual activity. A smallholder farmer with 1–5 acres of land can single-handedly cultivate and sell produce. But manufacturing is not an endeavour that can be undertaken individually; production and marketing require the concerted efforts of a group of people. For instance, one woman cannot produce tomato ketchup and sell it to a fast-moving consumer good (FMCG) company.

This means that if off-farm producer companies (OFPOs) are to thrive, we will need a shift from an individual farmer mindset to a manufacturing-oriented perspective. Most FPOs in India are involved in almost no value addition and are only engaged in selling farm produce. This is because the amount of processing required on produce needs to be significantly high for it to add to the FPO’s margins. For instance, if farmers produce dal and get it polished in a dal mill before they sell it, it does nothing to improve margins at the FPO level.

If we want to see an increase in farmer incomes, we have to adopt a manufacturing mindset.

If we want to see an increase in farmer incomes, we have to adopt a manufacturing mindset in principle and practice. This will necessitate following a model of distributed and decentralised production that adheres to the tenets of state-of-the-art manufacturing.

Globally, all manufacturing units have become automated now because of a shortage of labour. However, that cannot be a solution for India since we are a country that needs to create employment. Moreover, we have various kinds of markets—regional, national, and global—that require the standardisation of processes, high-quality products, and a good price. How do you get to that without 100 percent automation?

A decentralised, distributed model of manufacturing

One approach to manufacturing is the hub-and-spoke model. At the spokes, the activity can be informal, but at the hub, there is fair degree of formalisation. Spokes, which is where the communities are, are located within a 5–10 km radius of the hub.

Consider a group of 30 women from a village who work from home and make banana fibre pots. They have a room where the goods are collected, aggregated, and stored. Every week, an FPO representative goes to the village to pick up a week’s worth of baskets and brings them to the common facility centre, where they’re checked. Then the women’s handiwork goes through the set processes. For instance, every banana basket is subjected to temperatures of up to 60°C in a solar heater. At this level (the hub), the required infrastructure can be installed, processes established and standardised, and the quality of products can be checked, just like in manufacturing plants.

The spokes can exist outside the ambit of the Factories Act, which sets safety and efficiency standards for persons at workplaces, because they are small and distributed and leverage the vast informal workforce in the country. The hub, however, must be formal and incorporate all the policies that make it a formal establishment. In the case of food products, for example, this would include FSSAI compliances. This model also helps communities move from an informal to a formal labour system.

The 6C framework

Industree has built successful OFPOs over the years and our lessons and insights can be captured in what we call the 6C framework. This framework can be implemented by other organisations looking to establish OFPOs.  

1. Construct

To build economies of scale, aggregation is critical. Once that has been achieved, you need access to services and infrastructure. The services part essentially requires hiring people to work in the FPOs, and infrastructure includes common facilities such as premises and buildings. Having such spaces is imperative for value addition.

Whereas in a typical FPO, individual farmers are the shareholders, we have opted to engage producer institutions as shareholders. Producer institutions include self-help groups (SHGs), federations, or mutual benefit trusts (MBTs). We have taken the MBT route. Today we have 35 MBTs, each of which has approximately 200–400 members. In our experience, this is a model that works better for value addition. In MBTs, the producers are signatories of all processes, so the essence of ownership is higher. This helps producers with self-recognition and provides definite stability for the future.

2. Channel

One of the most important steps that OFPOs working on value-added products need to think about is identifying potential markets and customers. In parallel, one must evaluate the natural resources (corn, bamboo, millet, grass, etc.) available in a region and build channels and market access for thoese products.

However, it’s not always necessary to produce an end product. OFPOs can also act as suppliers to bigger companies. Vrutti, for example, works with an FPO in Chhattisgarh that is involved in producing custard apple pulp. This pulp is then sold to ice cream companies. However, this path of semi-processing, of becoming a sub-supplier to a larger brand has also not been explored thoroughly by Indian FPOs.

3. Capacity

Training people in the value chain is key. Farmers need to be equipped with the professional skills required to run such enterprises. In the hub-and-spoke model, there must be continuous training, especially for the people at the spoke level. They cannot function in isolation and need to be provided with skills and feedback on their work regularly so that they can meet the expected standards.

At the hub level, the model requires professionals from the world of manufacturing—people who understand issues such as minimum wage, HR management, quality, processes and systems, as well as all the relevant laws and compliances.

FPOs are enterprises, and each member is a micro-entrepreneur.

All of this is currently missing in the FPO world, and this is where a concerted effort by the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship becomes necessary. The Ministry needs to explore these aspects of entrepreneurship, manufacturing, and management in their programmes. This is because FPOs are enterprises, and each member is a micro-entrepreneur. The government must develop theory and practice with respect to entrepreneurship. They must think of training paraprofessionals for the FPO industry who can look after HR, finance, quality, manufacturing, compliance, etc. These programmes should run enmasse so that there are enough professionals available.

4. Create

Another important element is thinking about product design and development. Once you understand the market and customer demand, what will you make? This phase links the aspirations of consumers with what the farmers produce. Farmers usually have no direct link to the end consumers. Therefore product designers need to step in to fill in the gap. They do so by asking: How should the product be designed? What is the recipe? For example, if local farmers in a particular region grow millet, a marketable product such as millet bars or millet cereals can be designed around that farm produce. 

Create helps develop products that align with market preferences and are feasible and viable to make. This stage includes R&D, design, and product development. For instance, we worked with research labs to develop new processes within the banana bark value chain in order to create banana bark silk and fibre for weaving.

5. Capital

Running an OFPO like a manufacturing enterprise requires a high level of upfront investment as well as access to cheap working capital. These are critical because OFPOs must extend a 60- to 90-day credit period to their customers. To be able to do this and manage cashflows, they need working capital financing.

Working capital is expensive with non-banking financial companies (NBFCs) lending at 16 percent. This makes it harder for FPOs to be financially viable. Government schemes such as Agricultural Marketing Infrastructure, Venture Capital Assistance, and Mission for Integrated Development of Horticulture cover just 40–60 percent of the capital required for setting up FPOs. The rest of the capital needs to be raised from donors and CSRs as grants.

Essentially, we need to look at blended finance—a mix of government, market, and philanthropic capital—because during the first three years, it is extremely difficult to make do with money from government schemes alone. After this period, the company should aim for self-sustenance, such that the margins are enough for the OFPOs to continue on their own.

Well-designed and structured boards can also play a critical role in accessing capital. OFPOs usually start as sub-suppliers. Hence, at least two of their clients should be on the board, in addition to a few from the community. A mix of government, private sector, and community members can help OFPOs drive growth and profitability.

6. Connect

The final element of the 6C framework involves using technology to link producers to a larger ecosystem and scale opportunities with traceability and transparency, which are vital in the case of manufacturing. Traceability is especially important for OFPOs as it’s a major selling point with customers.  

Industree is building a collaborative digital social platform called the Platform for Inclusive Entrepreneurship (PIE). It aims to provide a collective space for knowledge assets (content, processes, tools, solutions) and data analytics to innovate and respond), enabling every stakeholder to bring their strengths in a unified way.

At Industree, GreenKraft is an example of the 6Cs in practice. An FPO with 10,000 members, the majority of whom are women, the company manufactures handwoven baskets made from recycled banana bark, sal leaf plates, and bamboo products. Since its inception in 2012, the company has earned USD 5 million in sales and its customers include H&M, TJ Max, and Ikea.

The landscape of OFPOs in India reveals both potential and challenges. In order to effectively build OFPOs at scale, we need to adopt a manufacturing mindset that incorporates a holistic framework in different contexts.   

—

Know more

• Read this report to learn more about how FPOs have performed in India.
• Read this explainer on FPOs. 

Over the last couple of years, initiatives aimed to bring millets back into our diets, and therefore, in the fields, have been in full swing. No longer perceived as an inferior coarse grain, millets are now considered to be planet-friendly, and nutritious. The recent focus has very much been on altering the behaviour of urban consumers who can afford to buy these products. But how is the rest of India to eat millets then, especially given its current price points, and accessibility?

This is where India’s Public Distribution System (PDS), with its scale and vast network of food distributors, can play a role in bringing millets to the masses. By controlling the affordability of essential products such as grains and pulses, the PDS influences how people eat, and what they choose to eat. Recognising the nutritional value of millets and the importance of supporting millet growers, the government of India has begun bolstering production and distribution of millets through public systems.

In Odisha, WASSAN (Watershed Support Services and Activities Network), in partnership with the state government, is working to reintroduce millets into people’s diets through already available public structures such as the PDS and Mid-day Meal Scheme.

“A demand for millets can’t be created solely through value-added products catered to urban consumers,” says Ashima Chaudhary, formerly the program manager at WASSAN, “It has to be done through bulk consumption for the masses.” According to her, there has to be more proactive encouragement of the bulk consumption of millet grains, like what was done for rice and wheat in the past.

At the moment, only ragi (finger millet), jowar (sorghum), and bajra (pearl millet) are procured by the government, and made available through the PDS. Minor millet varieties such as little millet are being considered for inclusion in the PDS in Odisha and Madhya Pradesh, as well as Telangana and Andhra Pradesh. However, initiatives to include minor varieties are being carried out as pilots by local NGOs, and have not been incorporated into state policy yet.

Before the conversation around including minor millets in public distribution surfaced, states like Karnataka, Odisha, Telangana, and Meghalaya had already begun distributing single-coated millets—mostly ragi—at PDS outlets on a pilot basis. Tamil Nadu has only recently begun expressing an interest in-state millet mission; in the select districts of Dharmapuri and Nilgiris, ragi is available in fair price shops on a pilot basis.

The Karnataka government has been striving to make millet varieties more accessible through the PDS, especially given that ragi and jowar are commonly consumed in different belts of the state. However, the realities of executing this through the state’s millet mission, led by MLA Krishna Byregowda, have been far more complex.

Although subsidised, millets are still too costly

The National Food Security Act, 2013 (NFSA) insists that eligible households are to receive 5 kg of foodgrains per person per month, with rice at Rs. 3 per kg, wheat at Rs. 2, and coarse grains at Rs.1; millets are considered to be coarse grains. Millets—largely ragi—were suddenly being mainstreamed and made cheaper than rice through the NFSA.

In 2019, the Odisha government began providing ragi at a subsidised rate in seven districts (Gajapati, Kalahandi, Kandhamal, Koraput, Nuapada, Malkangiri, and Rayagada). In six of these, cardholders would now be able to buy 1 kg of ragi for Rs. 1 every month. Only in Malkangiri district, the government provided 2 kg of ragi at Rs.1 per kg, due to more widespread consumption in the area. Chaudhary says that these prices hold true for Odisha today as well. By making ragi affordable and accessible through fair price shops, the Odisha government is effectively beginning to connect PDS beneficiaries to grains beyond rice and wheat.

Although the push for coarse grains such as ragi has been initiated in policy, its implementation reflects a different reality. While millets have been subsidised and made available through the PDS, rice remains cheaper in most states.

Lakshmi Narayanan from the Keystone foundation, which works with indigenous communities in the Nilgiris biosphere, observed a similar pattern during his fieldwork in the Pillur region in the Nilgiris district in Tamil Nadu. He says, “Although ragi is available in fair price shops, it still costs more than rice which is available for 3-5 rupees per kg and free of cost for tribal communities.”

Narayanan shares that before the Covid-19 pandemic, families in non-urban areas in the Nilgiris would grow their own ragi, eating it with rice. During the pandemic though, unable to purchase ragi seeds and farm them, beneficiary households became entirely dependent on the rice provided in the PDS.

The general health of tribal communities in the Nilgiris has deteriorated in the past five years, and they attribute this to excess rice consumption.

Even now, fair price shops in Tamil Nadu provide only ragi millet at a subsidy. Other millets indigenous to the region, such as kambu (pearl millet), solam (sorghum), and thinai (foxtail) varieties, which traditionally comprised parts of the Irula tribe’s diet—one of the tribal communities living in the Nilgiris district—have completely disappeared from their plates. At present, when families do eat millets, which is mostly during festivals and special occasions, they only consume ragi.

“The general health of tribal communities in the Nilgiris has deteriorated in the past five years, and they attribute this to excess rice consumption,” Narayanan adds.

Processing millets, a major challenge

Ragi, bajra, and jowar are also easier to distribute through the PDS given that they are naked grains which require minimal processing. Ragi, for example, can be ground more easily, and households often use traditional milling methods to produce ragi flour which is easy to cook and consume. While processing ragi may be relatively easier, the need for processing itself poses a barrier to consumption. For instance, in Tamil Nadu, ragi grains were traditionally hand ground into flour. However, this is no longer the practice, and people tend to rely on machinery, ranging from pulverisers to grinders.

Dr. Israel Oliver King, the director of MS Swaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) further contextualises the discourse around processing millets. With many having resorted to ad-hoc mechanisms of cleaning and grinding the single-coat ragi into a flour, minor miller varieties are even harder to process. Dr. King shares that minor millets— which have multiple coats to their seed—require specific machinery like dehullers, in order to make them cookable. Dehullers being expensive and hard to access, states largely focus on the millets that are easier to process.

However, in remote areas in the Nilgiris, Narayanan finds that people have little access to even seemingly basic machines, and travel long distances into the plains to process ragi grain. Understandably, the cost and time associated with this journey discourages people from buying millets. It is so much easier to just eat rice.

The introduction of millets through the PDS and fair price shops needs to be supported by adjacent milling systems

In Odisha, collective memories around eating millets are still relatively fresh. So, when ragi was introduced through the PDS in 2019, people were receptive to the prospect of including it in their diet, finds Chaudhary. However, there is little widespread knowledge, especially among newer generations, of how to treat the millet grain.

The introduction of millets through the PDS and fair price shops needs to be supported by adjacent milling systems—similar to local rice mills and atta chakkis—where millets can be processed easily, at low cost, and close to home.

Further, processed millets have a short shelf life, unlike rice and wheat, and can only be supported through an efficient local system of processing and distribution. In this regard, the government of Odisha has successfully championed local production, processing, and distribution through the Odisha Millet Mission, losing only little of the precious grain to spoilage.

Reimagining millets as aspirational

In Odisha, WASSAN has observed that people want to consume higher quality grains, in terms of grain grade as well as the micronutrient richness, and enjoy diversity in their diets. This is especially true for older generations, who distinctly remember eating a variety of millets. 

However, as tastes change, promotion of these grains must change as well. Chaudhary finds that younger generations are not interested in traditional dishes such as jaur—a fermented porridge made with rice and ragi flour. Building awareness early through campaigns in schools and anganwadis can help portray millets as aspirational and tasty.

Through the Odisha Millet Mission, the state has been working to provide and promote millets to children. This includes ragi laddoos as morning snacks for children in anganwadis under the Integrated Child Development Services, and promotional events featuring millet dishes for children to taste.

But taste can be a knotty subject, as Lakshman Kalasapudi—adjunct professor of Anthropology at Rowan university—found. In his research in Srikakulam District in Northern Andhra Pradesh under the Revitalising Small Millets in South Asia project in 2010, Kalapasudi observed that many viewed millets positively.

The residents of the village perceived millets—mainly ragi—as healthy, strong, easy to grow, and tastier than ‘quota rice’ or rice provided through the PDS. Kalapasudi hypothesises that the local government’s push for millets, supported by non-governmental groups such as WASSAN, played a significant role in promoting millets as a worthy group to include in one’s diet.

At the same time, millets were also associated with moments of scarcity, famine, and hunger—as food eaten by the poor. “[The respondents] recalled millets as food eaten due to lack of choice, rather than a desire to eat them,” says Kalapasudi. The tension between millets being tasty and a source of nutrition, and simultaneously a food of compulsion suggests many conflicting ideas surrounding millets—while the notion of millets as the poor person’s food may be traced back to introduction of rice as aspirational in the 1980s, the reimagining of millets as aspirational is a more recent phenomenon of the 2010s.

Thinking back to his fieldwork, Kalapasudi shared that millets were remembered by those in the village in a sing-song voice. “Finger millet, foxtail, barnyard, pearl millet, sorghum, and little millet were spoken about together, in one breath.” Although most millet varieties are rarely eaten in Srikakulam district today, ragi is still ardently consumed in the form of ragi ambali—ragi malt with buttermilk.

Karnataka, a pioneer in introducing millets in the PDS, also illustrates this complexity. Dr. King recounts, “Traditionally a millet-eating state, with the Northern district known as the sorghum belt and the Southern district the ragi belt, the uptake of millets from the PDS was surprisingly low.” A study conducted on this reveals that the low acceptance can be attributed, to some extent, to the existing abundance of millet in people’s fields and plates.

“Since farmers in the state are already producing millets, there is enough for their self-consumption and surplus for sale,” he adds.

While trying to understand the acceptance of millets in the PDS, it is these complexities and contrasting notions that have been most, often alone, glaring. As millets are mainstreamed, it is difficult to ignore how tenuous existing relationships with millets are. Or, what it stood for in the past. Our eating and purchasing behaviours reveal a tumultuous journey, with a deep dissonance between cultural imaginations of the grain as inferior to rice, and their recent resurgence as a super-grain.

Has the inclusion of millets in the PDS been a success? In a system where a historically sidelined grain is pitted against rice and wheat, we are ill-equipped to even ask such a question.

This article was originally published on The Locavore website, in partnership with Rainmatter Foundation.

The concept of farmer producer organisations was developed in the early 2000s to help farmers collectivise and start group enterprises, which would allow them to pool together their produce; trade in larger quantities; and, depending on their capabilities and funding, start value-addition activities and identify non-local buyers.

What is a farmer producer organisation?

A farmer producer organisation (FPO) is a legal entity that is owned and managed by farmers, which, in this context, includes cultivators, dairy producers, fishers, plantation owners, and others engaged in primary production in the agriculture sector. FPO is a generic term for farmer collectives and can refer to one of the following:

• A company (under the Companies Act)
• A cooperative society (under the Multi-state Cooperative Societies Act)
• A mutually aided cooperative society (under the Mutually Aided Cooperative Societies Act).

FPOs are one type of producer organisation; others include collectives of weavers and artisans. Since most farmer producer organisations in recent years have been registered as producer companies, the terms FPC and FPO are often used interchangeably.

Farmer producer organisations perform different kinds of functions. Many FPOs buy inputs (such as fertilisers and pesticides) from manufacturers in bulk for their member farmers in order to get significant discounts and better-quality products. Others focus on commodities produced by their members such as milk, grains, fruits, and vegetables. Among these, most sell the produce in bulk to traders or agents, and some sell their products after value addition to bulk buyers, retailers, or directly to consumers.

In order to generate farmer income and create more employment opportunities for small and marginal farmers, the government launched a scheme called the Formation and Promotion of 10,000 New Farmer Producer Organisations in February 2020. The scheme has a total budgetary outlay of INR 6,865 crore. Farmers with small and marginal holdings face multiple production challenges such as the inability to add value to their product, lack of access to technology, and low-quality seeds. This scheme is designed to combat these challenges. Some state government schemes and nonprofits with a rural development focus are also working towards the aggregation and promotion of FPOs.

How do farmer producer organisations work?

There are many different ways in which FPOs can operate. Most FPOs operate as stand-alone businesses, doing everything from aggregating the produce to grading, sorting, processing (if any), and marketing. FPOs can also be part of consortiums that may provide certain services such as connecting with buyers (called ‘market linkage’) or access to loans at better rates. Some FPOs are part of a two-tier structure where supplier FPOs focus on aggregating, sorting, and grading the produce, while a market-facing FPO adds value to the produce and markets and sells it.

However, there are some things that are common to all FPOs. The member farmers of an FPO provide the capital and have a stake in the company. A minimum of 10 shareholders are required to start a producer company. According to a 2020 report by Azim Premji University (APU), the majority of FPOs have an average of 200–250 shareholders. The composition of FPOs varies significantly—from large-scale farmers to small and marginal farmers as shareholders. The capital provided by the shareholders can be used as working capital to procure the produce of member farmers or to purchase equipment for storage and processing and other resources.

Promoting organisations and resource institutions, funders, and investors (government and non-government) are some of the other stakeholders in this ecosystem. To establish an FPO, either a group of farmers can come together and decide to form a producer company on their own, or a promoting institution (often a nonprofit) might convince a group of farmers about the benefits of forming a producer company. The law requires a minimum of 10 members, though most nonprofit-promoted producer companies aim for much higher numbers to pool together greater resources, as registering an FPO can cost anywhere from INR 20–40,000. Registration also makes it possible for the FPO to qualify for government schemes.

How are farmer producer organisations structured?

Since FPO is a generic category and refers to different types of farmer collectives, how it is structured and run depends on how and by whom it is formed. At the government level, there are several nodal agencies that facilitate the formation of FPOs, such as NCDC, NABARD, and SFAC. These agencies engage other organisations, such as nonprofits or consulting firms, to aggregate and support FPOs for a period of five years. FPOs formed under schemes started by state agriculture departments or by CSR arms of corporations may work differently.

As per NABARD guidelines, FPO members have to collectively specify the rules for a company’s operations and indicate which activities they can undertake. Some other guidelines are that the budget is approved by the member shareholders, the FPO’s performance is monitored by the board, and the CEO takes care of day-to-day affairs. But how an FPO functions can look vastly different in practice. In many cases, the nonprofit or promoting organisation that started the FPO will end up running the operations, simply because most Indian farmers do not have the business know-how required to run a company.

Why are farmer producer organisations important?

Collectivisation of farmers is not a new concept in India, and the Cooperative Credit Societies Act 1904 is one of the earliest legislations on farmer collectives. But most cooperatives have been unable to sustain themselves as member-controlled independent business entities due to a resource crunch and local political interference. This has led to excessive dependence on the government for funds, dormant membership, bureaucratic functioning, lack of capital formation, and so on. Therefore, FPOs seek to bring in primacy of a ‘business perspective’, which was previously lacking, to the cooperative model.

Collectivisation is considered beneficial to farmers because their incomes and landholding sizes remain low. According to the Agriculture Census 2015–16, small and marginal farmers whose landholdings are under 2 hectare account for 86 percent of all farmers and own just 47.3 percent of the total crop area. In addition, small and marginal farmers only make approximately 50 percent of their income from farming; the rest comes from working as wage labourers.

Lack of capital can block a farmer’s access to the market, but when capital is pooled, transportation and selling costs are minimised. Moreover, resources such as seeds, fertilisers, pesticides, and farm equipment may be too costly for individual farmers, so collectivising can enable them to buy these in bulk at wholesale rates. Collectivisation also helps in value addition to the product that can help minimise the losses incurred by farmers after harvest.

A lot of farmers are not able to sell their produce at remunerative prices—this can be because of small quantities of produce, low negotiating power, and not having the market linkages required to sell to anyone other than local intermediaries. FPOs can foster an environment of information exchange. Farmers also have more bargaining power against intermediaries and corporate entities when they act as a collective. Inconsistent pricing by intermediaries can result in fluctuation in market prices, but FPOs can ensure greater transparency and fairness in product pricing. All the members of a farmer producer organisation are stakeholders and get a say, which gives the decision-making power to women farmers as well if they are enrolled as members in the FPC.

What are the challenges faced by farmer producer organisations?

According to the APU report, one of the biggest challenges that FPOs face is raising the capital required to buy members’ produce or for performing activities such as value addition. It can be difficult to convince farmers to become FPO members and put in their money at the outset. If monoculture (growing one crop per season such as wheat or rice) is the dominant practice, then it can take multiple procurement cycles to get more people to join the FPO. If only some farmers join in a given year, then there may have to be multiple seasons of successful procurement to get non-member farmers to become members.

The report also mentions that FPOs find it difficult to attract and retain skilled professionals who can discharge CEO and other managerial responsibilities. FPCs need to be commercially successful to be sustainable, so having people with business acumen on board is essential. Studies cited in the report have listed “poor inventory management, lack of skills for developing feasible business plans and managing the business” as some of the reasons that producer companies are unprofitable. Although there has been a sharp rise in the number of FPOs, a lot of them struggle to function, and many have gone defunct.

In 2017, a national conference on FPOs organised by the Institute of Rural Management Anand brought together academics, researchers, and FPO representatives. These are some of the challenges mentioned by the FPO representatives.

• Lack of member loyalty: This can happen when the member farmers’ expectations of the FPO are not met. They then end up selling their produce wherever they get the highest price. There is also lack of awareness about the benefits of becoming a member.
• Low capacity for governance: This is due to the low level of literacy among farmers; limited awareness on how to run an FPO; and lack of time. Running an FPO also requires some knowledge of bookkeeping and of financial provisions and laws that the FPO needs to comply with. All of this can be too cumbersome for farmers, and hiring professionals is unaffordable.
• Lack of consistency in policy: There are many different types of farmer collectives that can operate in any setting, and policies do not cater to the needs of FPOs. There are disparities regarding credit availability, the price at which fertilisers can be procured, and minimum support price (MSP) availability.

Jasmine Bal and Srishti Gupta contributed to this article with inputs and insights from Richa Govil, Emmanuel Murray, Arjuna Srinidhi, and the report Farmer Producer Companies: Past, Present and Future.

—

Know more

• Learn more about the emergent challenges and opportunities related to FPOs.
• Read about a day in the life of an adivasi women who manages an FPO in Maharashtra.
• Listen to this podcast that discusses the importance of FPOs in Indian agricultural system.

The Himalayas are warming faster than the global average, which has immediate repercussions on agriculture, altering crop cycles, growing seasons and soil moisture. In Uttarakhand, a primarily mountainous province, with some foothills and plains, the problem is magnified because the majority of farmed land–according to the most recent census done in 2011–consists of ‘marginal’ plots of less than 1 hectare, (36% of the state’s total farmed land) or small ones (1-2 hectares, 28% of the area).

Small landholdings make it harder to adapt

Not everybody is equally hard hit. As one study points out, while all socio-economic groups are represented among small and marginal farmers, this is not true of large farm landholdings (over 4 hectares). Almost none of these are owned by Scheduled Caste, or Dalit, community members. Historically repressed, the Dalit community–to which Neema Devi and Prema Devi belong–has made progress since India’s independence, but their marginalisation is still evident in small landholdings. Climate change threatens even this limited progress.

As climatic conditions change, some farmers in Uttarakhand are turning to new crops.

“Forget about selling [crops]; if we can grow enough to feed ourselves, we’re thankful,” says Neema Devi.

As climatic conditions change, some farmers in Uttarakhand are turning to new crops, with help from the government or NGOs, to maintain profitability. Unfortunately, this is not possible for many women and Dalit farmers.

Although the state government now subsidises the distribution of kiwi plants, raising the fruit requires a significant investment.

“If you want an orchard, you will need support in the form of angle iron, which is a T-shaped support system for [each] plant, and in one nali [approximately 0.049 of an acre] of zameen [land] one can grow only eight trees, and one angle iron costs INR 4,000-5,000 [USD 50-60],” says Pawan, who works with the Institute of Himalayan Environmental Research and Education (INHERE), an NGO focused on sustainable development in the Himalayas. The cost of this infrastructure alone, before transportation and other inputs, would be nearly INR 40,000 (USD 500), roughly what an average resident of Uttarakhand earns in two months.

Such investment is beyond the means of small and marginal farmers who earn much less than the average income, especially as kiwi plants take 3-5 years to start bearing fruit.

Another climate adaptation initiative the government and other organisations are suggesting is the cultivation of herbs and medicinal crops. But this needs a lot of land, which poorer farmers, women farmers, or Dalit farmers, are not likely to have.

“If we just sell the leaves of tulsi [Ocimum tenuiflorum], the market price is really low, and if we sell the oil extracted from it, the rates are higher, but [a plant] only provides a very small quantity [of oil],” says Pawan from INHERE. The same is true for lemongrass, he adds: “If you need 100 millilitres of lemongrass oil, you’ll need at least 10 quintals [one metric ton] of produce, which covers a large area.”

Organic farming is another tack pursued by the government and various NGOs to help people adapt to climate change. The Uttarakhand State Organic Certification Agency (USOCA) was set up to facilitate the shift. The emphasis is on indigenous crops like finger millet and barnyard millet, which are more climate resilient, mould-resistant, and can often grow without irrigation. However, USOCA’s non-discriminatory policy pledges ring hollow when lack of resources create barriers to small or marginal farmers adopting organic farming.

“Many Dalit families don’t even have enough livestock to make cow dung fertiliser,” says Geeta Bisht, an agriculture specialist from INHERE.

Fluctuating rainfall, and little protection

Marginal farmers are also struggling with greater rainfall fluctuation. Only 45% of farmland in Uttarakhand is irrigated, so most rely on rainfall for their crops. Kheema, a field coordinator for the Association for Rural Planning and Action (ARPAN), an NGO focusing on marginalised communities and women’s rights, says rain either comes when it is not needed or is too heavy, destroying the crop.

Basanti Devi of Chinoni village told The Third Pole how her wheat crop was damaged during harvest this year: “The heavy rain washes away the plant’s yield, and whatever we can salvage gets wet, either sprouting or blackening it; in both cases, it becomes unfit for human consumption.”

Neema said she and Prema grow crops like wheat solely for family consumption. Cash income comes from their fruit crops–oranges, lemons, plums and peaches. This year, unseasonal rainfall either washed away the flowers, or damaged the fruit, so they got no income.

“We didn’t even sell our fruits…, now they rot on our trees,” Rama Devi says.

Some farmers share information and receive updates about government schemes through WhatsApp groups that NGOs also participate in. For poorer farmers, this remains out of reach as they cannot afford to invest in smartphones to use messaging apps.

“We don’t get to know about anything here, and by the time we do, it’s too late,” Rama Devi says.

With such unpredictable weather patterns, the government has supported crop insurance schemes, such as the Pradhan Mantri Fasal Bima Yojana or Prime Minister Crop Insurance Scheme. What such schemes ignore is that many poorer farmers, particularly women and Dalit women, work on land that they do not own. They either share the profits with the titular owner of the land, or–a practice found in the mountain communities of Uttarakhand but not in the plains, according to Bisht of INHERE–they are allowed to keep all the produce in exchange for not leaving the land barren.

People who work land that is in the names of absentee landlords cannot get crop insurance. Furthermore, rising temperatures have brought an increase in pest attacks and diseases, forcing farmers to use more pesticides. This adds to out-of-pocket expenses for those farming on the land of others.

While climate change has a direct impact on yield, some farmers, such as Rama Devi, have seen their lands suffer as well. Uttarakhand witnessed devastating heavy rains causing flood and destruction of property in many places in 2021. Due to no proper drainage system in place, water from the highway, located just a ten-minute walk upfill from their farm (registered under her husband’s name), washed away about 1,000 square feet of their fields. “Those lands had lemon and orange trees. We even grew cucumbers, but now nothing remains of it,” Rama Devi told The Third Pole.

Forest fires add to woes

A third climate impact is the increase of forest fires in Uttarakhand, which have risen “from 922 in 2002 to 41,600 in 2019,” with a strong positive correlation between outbreaks of fires and periods of hotter weather. For small farmers like Neema, this means human-animal conflict, as animals flee the forests: “Monkeys and wild boar leave nothing on our lands, and because our homes are on the outskirts of the forest, we are on the front lines of their attacks.”

Dalit communities are often located on the outskirts of the village, leaving their fields more vulnerable to animal incursions.

In Uttarakhand’s rural areas, the long impact of marginalisation means Dalit communities are often located on the outskirts of the village, leaving their fields more vulnerable to animal incursions. Furthermore, this segregation by socio-economic grouping means that government or NGO initiatives or information reach them last, if at all.

“No one ever visits us, we’re mostly ill-informed of what’s happening, what new schemes are coming in. Even the track leading to our houses is not well maintained and becomes impossible to walk on when it rains,” says Prema Devi.

Rama Devi’s life reflects the progress made by Dalit communities, and the distance still to go: “We used to live even further down and shifted here a mere 30 years ago. Even now, it takes 15 minutes to walk down the main road and so we never get to know what is happening in the village,” she tells The Third Pole.  

The government of Uttarakhand is running several schemes to provide seeds, fertiliser, and heavy machinery to local farmers. However, farmers must first obtain the land-related documents, then travel to the block office to collect the subsidised material.

Due to cultural constraints, women are either not educated enough, or familiar enough, to navigate often male-dominated official systems. Relying on their men to do so may not be an option, as Uttarakhand has a long history of men leaving to support their families through jobs elsewhere. “The schemes are made for the men here, so they are the only ones who can benefit from them,” says Kheema. The journey between their homes and the government offices is also too expensive for some.

“We earn nothing from this land, but it drains all of our money; we have to spend 350 rupees [USD 4.30] every time we visit the [sub-divisional government] office, and even then, there is no guarantee of when the consignment will arrive,” says Bharti Devi, a woman Dalit farmer from Dhudholi village.

The Third Pole reached out to the Additional Agriculture Director of Uttarakhand to ask if the government knew of these challenges and if there were steps being taken two weeks before publication. The story will be updated when a response is received.

This article was originally published on The Third Pole.